coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
6.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lives in Sharan, Bashkortostan Republic.
7.  On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with disorderly conduct. On 25 April 2003 he signed an undertaking not to leave the town.
8.  On 8 July 2003 the Justice of the Peace of the Sharanskiy District of the Bashkortostan Republic found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to one year and nine months' imprisonment, conditionally suspended for two years. It ordered the applicant to remain in the town until the conviction became final. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed.
9.  On 19 August 2003 the Sharanskiy District Court of the Bashkortostan Republic upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal. It revoked the suspension of the sentence, however. On the same day the applicant was taken into custody.
10.  Further to a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant, on 9 October 2003 the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic quashed the District Court's judgment of 19 August 2003 and remitted the case to the District Court for fresh examination. The Supreme Court noted that the District Court had failed to observe the procedure pertaining to the presentation of the final submissions by the parties and to classify the conviction in full compliance with the applicable substantive law.
11.  The applicant remained in custody. He allegedly complained to the director of the remand prison that his continued detention was not based on a judicial decision and asked to be released. The director responded by informing him that a certain “Judge K.” had told him not to release the applicant until further notice. The applicant also complained to the Supreme Court of the Bashkortostan Republic but received no reply.
12.  On 5 November 2003 the District Court fixed an appeal hearing for 13 November 2003. Neither the applicant nor his counsel attended the hearing. As regards the applicant's detention, the court noted as follows:
“The preventive measure, notably placement of [the applicant] in custody, should remain unchanged.”
13.  According to the applicant, he received a copy of the decision of 5 November 2003 on 25 November 2003. Therefore, he considered that he had missed the ten-day time-limit for challenging the decision in question and did not lodge an appeal against it.
14.  On 5 December 2003 the District Court upheld the applicant's conviction on appeal and revoked the suspension of his conditional sentence. The applicant was represented by Mr G., state-appointed counsel. Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed.
15.  The Supreme Court scheduled a hearing for 17 February 2004. On 29 January 2004 the court dispatched summonses to the parties, including the applicant and his counsel, notifying them of the date and time of the hearing.
16.  On 17 February 2004 the Supreme Court held the cassation hearing. It heard the prosecutor and granted his request to reclassify the charges against the applicant. It found the applicant guilty of battery and sentenced him to one year, eight months and fifteen days' imprisonment. The applicant was neither present nor represented.
4.  In 2001 the applicant purchased a flat from a private company P.
5.  In September 2002 another company, N., lodged a civil action against the company P., the applicant and several other persons claiming title to the flat.
6.  On 25 July 2003 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod rejected the claim.
7.  On 19 December 2003 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal and it became final and binding.
8.  The courts found, inter alia, that when the company N. claimed title to the flat the latter had been already in the applicant’s possession, and therefore, under the relevant law, could not be given to the claimant.
9.  On unspecified date the company N. applied for supervisory review of the judgments of 25 July 2003 and 19 December 2003.
10.  On 9 March 2004 a judge of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court refused to refer the case to the Presidium for consideration by way of supervisory review.
11.  On 28 April 2004 the acting President of the Regional Court disagreed and requested the case from the District Court. On 25 May 2004 he referred the case to the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court.
12.  On 17 June 2004 the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed the judgment of 25 July 2003 and the appeal judgment of 19 December 2003 for incorrect interpretation of the domestic law, and remitted the case for a fresh examination. It found, inter alia, that the inferior courts did not take into account that the flat was given to the applicant under a void agreement, and therefore the applicant’s possession of the flat did not preclude the company N. from claiming a title to it.
13.  On 5 April 2005 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod found against the applicant. On 6 September 2005 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
14.  On 30 March 2006, under the applicant’s initiative, the Presidium of the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court quashed these judgments by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh consideration.
15.  On 2 February 2007 the Nizhegorodskiy District Court of Nizhniy Novgorod held against the applicant. It deprived the applicant of the title to the disputed flat on the grounds that the sales agreement had been null and void. The court also ordered that company P. pay the applicant compensation for the flat and that the applicant and her daughter be evicted from the flat.
16.  On 24 April 2007 the Nizhniy Novgorod Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Makhachkala.
5.  In 2000 he bought a part of a house from a certain Y. The co-owner of the house, G., brought a court action against the applicant for annulment of the agreement, on the grounds that she (G.), having a pre-emption right, had not been informed about the agreement in advance in accordance with the domestic law.
6.  On 18 February 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Makhachkala held in favour of G., transferred to her the property rights on the applicant’s part of the house and obliged her to reimburse the applicant its value.
7.  On 3 March 2004 Y., a co‑defendant to the proceedings along with the applicant, appealed against the judgment. On 16 March 2004 the applicant joined the appeal.
8.  On 2 April 2004 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan quashed the judgment of 18 February 2004 on appeal and dismissed G.’s action.
9.  On 2 July 2004 G. lodged an application for supervisory review of the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 with the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan.
10.  On 16 September 2004 the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan referred the case to its Presidium.
11.  On 23 September 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Dagestan quashed the appeal judgment of 2 April 2004 for wrong assessment of evidence and upheld the judgment of 18 February 2004.
12.  The applicant submits that he was not duly informed about the date and the time of the hearing before the Presidium and therefore could not attend it. The other party’s representative was present and made submissions.
4.  The applicant, who is a Croatian national, was born in 1939 and lives in Zagreb.
5.  On 30 December 1993 the applicant brought a civil action against a private party in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu), seeking payment of a debt and damages related to a breach of contract.
6.  In the period before the ratification of the Convention by Croatia (5 November 1997), the court held four hearings.
7.  On 16 May 1995 and 8 February 2000 the Municipal Court invited the applicant to specify his claim. Since he failed to comply, the Municipal Court decided on 13 March 2000 that the applicant had withdrawn his action.
8.  On 24 March 2000 the applicant lodged a request for restoring the proceedings to the status quo ante (prijedlog za povrat u prijašnje stanje), which the Municipal Court granted on 3 November 2000 and set aside its decision of 13 March 2000.
9.  On 24 December 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the length of the above proceedings.
10.  On 13 April 2006 the Municipal Court adopted a judgment dismissing the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
11.  On 1 February 2007 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time. It also found that the delays in the proceedings in the period before November 2000 were entirely attributable to the applicant while the further delays in the period from 17 September 2001 until 24 December 2004 were attributable exclusively to the inactivity of the Municipal Court. The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant 4,500 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation and ordered the County Court to give a decision in the applicant’s case as quickly as possible but in any case within six months following the publication of its decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court’s decision was published on 7 March 2007.
12.  Meanwhile, on 13 February 2007 the County Court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Zagreb Municipal Court before which the proceedings are currently pending.
3.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Istanbul.
4.  Following the privatisation of the public institute where he was employed as an inspector, on 19 March 1999 the applicant was appointed to a new post at the Social Security Institution for the Self‑Employed (Bağ‑Kur).
5.  On 16 April 1999 the applicant brought a case before the Ankara Administrative Court against the Prime Minister's Office and Bağ-Kur to challenge his appointment.
6.  On 2 December 1999 the administrative court dismissed the applicant's request, holding that his appointment had been effected in accordance with the relevant domestic law.
7.  On 14 October 2003 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the decision of the administrative court and on 1 February 2006 it rejected the applicant's rectification request.
4.  The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Pskov.
5.  The applicant, a retired military serviceman, brought court proceedings against the Military Service Commissariat of Pskov Region (“the Commissariat”).
6.  On 25 October 2002 the Pskov Town Court of Pskov Region ruled that the applicant was entitled to a monthly allowance for health damage related to professional hardship of 4,540.52 Russian roubles (RUB) and a monthly allowance for food expenses of RUB 544.80. The court also found that the debt accrued as a result of previous underpayment of the monthly allowance for health damage was RUB 49,566.56, the debt in respect of the allowance for food expenses was RUB 734.40 and the debt in respect of the annual allowance for health damage accrued in 2001 was RUB 281.50. The court also ordered that the monthly allowances awarded to be subsequently adjusted in line with inflation.
7.  The judgment was not appealed against and on 5 November 2002 became final.
8.  On 19 December 2003 and 23 March 2004 the arrears awarded for the period from 1 August 2001 to 31 March 2004 were paid to the applicant.
9.  On 11 November 2003 the Commissariat applied for the supervisory review of the judgment.
10.  On 12 March 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Russia, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 25 October 2002 in the part obliging the respondent Commissariat to index-link the payments and upheld the remainder of the first instance court’s findings.
11.  On 5 August 2004 the Pskov Town Court rejected the Commissariat’s request to annul the judgment of 25 October 2002 due to discovery of new circumstances. The applicant made written submissions and, apparently, was present at the court room.
12.  On 30 December 2004 the Commissariat introduced a new application for the supervisory review of the judgments of 24 October 2002 and 12 March 2004 with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
13.  On 30 September 2005 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, by way of supervisory review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 25 October 2002 on the ground of incorrect application of the domestic law and remitted the case for a new examination. The Presidium also annulled the judgment of 12 March 2004 insofar as the latter upheld the award made on 25 October 2002.
14.  On 27 January 2006 the Pskov Town Court examined the case afresh and granted the applicant’s claims in full. The court ordered the Commissariat to pay the applicant RUB 37,896.38 in arrears in food allowance for the period from 1 July 2000 to 31 December 2005 RUB 36,930.96 in arrears in compensation for health damage. The applicant was further awarded RUB 1,640.91 monthly in respect of the food allowance and RUB 6,838.04 in compensation for health damage. On 4 April 2006 the judgment was upheld by the Pskov Regional Court. On 5 May 2006 the award was enforced.
4.  In January 1999 the applicant brought an action with the Korabelnyy District Court of Mykolayiv against several companies (the successors of her former employer) seeking compensation for damage to her health inflicted at work.
5.  On 11 April 2005 the court dismissed the applicant’s action against the respondents and ordered the Social Insurance Fund to make certain monthly insurance payments to the applicant with their further recalculation.
6.  On 20 October 2005 the Mykolayiv Regional Court of Appeal partly changed the above judgment by increasing the amounts of monthly payments and ordering the Social Insurance Fund to pay the applicant certain amounts in arrears.
7.  On 4 January 2006 the applicant appealed in cassation to the Supreme Court. After she had rectified her appeal on 27 February 2006 and the District Court had sent the case file to the Supreme Court on 21 April 2006, the latter took the case for examination. On 4 October 2007 the Supreme Court forwarded the appeal in cassation to the Kherson Regional Court of Appeal, which on 26 November 2007, acting as a court of cassation, rejected it as unsubstantiated.
8.  In the course of the proceedings, the applicant modified her claim on four occasions, lodged about ten procedural requests and lodged several appeals which were not in accordance with procedural requirements or requested the courts to extend the time-limits for lodging them. Of fifty-seven hearings, one hearing was adjourned due to the applicant’s failure to attend it, two hearings following her requests that they be adjourned, and one due to both parties’ failure to attend it. The above delays on the applicant’s part protracted the proceedings to approximately seven months. Furthermore, ten hearings were adjourned due to the sickness or absence of a judge and twenty-six due to the respondents’ or experts’ failure to attend them or the respondents’ requests to adjourn them, or for other reasons (public holidays, end of working day, and so on). The case was twice remitted for fresh consideration and four expert examinations were ordered by the domestic courts.
4.  The applicant was born in 1941 and lives in the village of Stari Bogorodchany, Ivano-Frankivsk Region, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant and Mr L. co-owned a small estate which comprised a plot of land, a house, a shed, a well and a fence (“the estate”). On 4 January 1995 the applicant instituted proceedings against Mr L. in the Bogorodchany Court seeking division of the estate.
6.  On 18 January 1995 Mr L. lodged a counterclaim seeking a larger share of the estate. On the same day the Bogorodchany Court joined the proceedings.
7.  On 12 April 1995, following an order of the Deputy President of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court[1], the case was transferred to the Tismenitsky Court.
8.  On 16 June 1999 the latter allowed the applicant's claim in part. The applicant appealed in cassation. On 4 January 2000 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 16 June 1999. The judgment became final.
9.  On 14 July 2000, following an objection (protest) by the President of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court, the Presidium of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court quashed the judgment of 16 June 1999 and remitted the case to the Tismenitsky Court for fresh consideration.
10.  On 29 June 2005, following an order of the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal, the case was transferred to the Galitsky Court.
11.  On 8 April 2008 the Galitsky Court partly allowed the applicant's and Mr L.'s claims.
12.  On 6 May 2008 the Galitsky Court gave an additional judgment, ordering the applicant to reimburse legal expenses to Mr L.
13.  The applicant appealed against these judgments.
14.  On 30 September 2008 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 8 April 2008 and the additional judgment of 6 May 2008.
15.  The applicant appealed in cassation. On 10 March 2009 the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts.
4.  The applicant is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1970 and lives in the Ivano-Frankivsk Region.
5.  In October 1994 the applicant was injured by a private individual, V. Shortly afterwards, criminal proceedings were instituted against that person in the course of which the applicant claimed compensation for damage.
6.  On 8 December 1995 the Bogorodchany Court found V. guilty of inflicting bodily injuries on the applicant and ordered him to pay the applicant 8,000,000 karbovantsi (former Ukrainian currency) in compensation.
7.  On 10 January 1996 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court quashed the part of that judgment which concerned the applicant’s compensation claim and remitted that part of the case for fresh consideration. In May 1996 the applicant modified her claims.
8.  Between 10 January 1996 and 10 September 1997 the case was twice reconsidered by the courts of first and appeal instances. On the latter date the applicant requested the first-instance court to suspend the proceedings until January-February 1998 for health reasons.
9.  On 29 September 1997 the court granted her request.
10.  In October 1998 the proceedings were resumed.
11.  On 19 November 1998 the Tysmennytsa Court, to which the case had earlier been transferred, ordered, of its own motion, a forensic examination to assess the gravity of the applicant’s bodily injuries. The examination was completed on 2 February 1999.
12.  On 22 July 1999 the court ordered an additional forensic examination at the applicant’s request. That examination was completed on 27 December 2000.
13.  On 8 February 2002 the court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded her 22,316 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH)[1] in compensation for her medical treatment, loss of earnings, non-pecuniary damage and legal fees.
14.  On 28 May 2002 the Ivano-Frankivsk Regional Court of Appeal changed that decision and decreased the award to UAH 9,315[2].
15.  In June 2002 the applicant and V. appealed in cassation.
16.  Following several reconsiderations of the admissibility of V.’s appeal, on 24 April 2003 the case was referred to the Supreme Court.
17.  On 4 June 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant and V. as unsubstantiated.
18.  According to the Government, the judgment of 8 February 2002 (as amended by the judgment of 28 May 2002) was enforced in full by the end of 2004.
19.  In the course of the court proceedings, nine hearings were adjourned either at the applicant’s request or due to her failure to appear, four were adjourned due to both parties’ failure to appear, and one was adjourned due to the absence of the judge.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Nizhnevartovsk, a city in the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous District.
5.  In 1987 the applicant was convicted of fraud and complicity in bribery. In 1988 a supervisory instance court quashed the conviction and ordered a new investigation. The investigation was pending until 1999. In February 1999 the criminal proceedings against the applicant were discontinued.
6.  The applicant sued the Ministry of Finance for compensation. On 14 September 2001 the Nizhnevartovsk District Court awarded the applicant 37 016 Russian roubles (RUB) in pecuniary damage and 800 000 RUB in non-pecuniary damage.
7.  On 28 November 2001 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court upheld on appeal the judgment in respect of the pecuniary damage, but reduced the amount of the compensation of non-pecuniary damage to 80 000 RUB.
8.  The applicant applied for a supervisory review of the appeal decision of 28 November 2001. On 7 December 2001 the Khanty-Mansi Regional Court quashed the appeal decision of 28 November 2001 and restored in full the validity of the judgment of 14 September 2001.
9.  On 10 December 2002 the applicant received the money awarded to him in pecuniary damage by the judgment of 14 September 2001.
10.  On 26 September 2003 the Supreme Court quashed, by means of supervisory review, the judgments of 14 September 2001 and 7 December 2001, and restored the validity of the appeal decision of 28 November 2001.
11.  On 13 May 2004 the applicant received the money awarded to him in non-pecuniary damage by the appeal decision of 28 November 2001.
4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Vinnytsya.
5.  On 1 June 2000 the applicant’s son was beaten to death. On 8 June 2000 the prosecutors instituted criminal proceedings against M., D., Z. and C. (“the defendants”) on suspicion of having murdered the applicant’s son. On 29 December 2000 the prosecutors issued a bill of indictment and referred the criminal case to courts.
6.  According to the applicant, on 11 December 2000, in the framework of the criminal proceedings, she introduced a civil claim against the defendants for compensation and on 21 February 2003 she amended her claim by increasing the claimed compensation. Despite the Court’s request, the applicant has failed to provide a copy of her claim. In their observations, the Government submitted a copy of the applicant’s civil claim dated 21 February 2003.
7.  Following the Supreme Court’s two remittals of the case for fresh consideration, on 19 June 2009 the Staromiskyy District Court of Vinnytsya found M. guilty of intentional infliction of grievous bodily injuries on the applicant’s son that led to the latter’s death and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. It further found C., Z. and D. guilty of hooliganism, sentenced them to various terms of restriction of liberty and discharged them because the limitation period had expired. The court also allowed the applicant’s civil claim and ordered M. and C. to pay her certain amounts in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.
8.  On 20 August 2009 the Vinnytsya Regional Court of Appeal upheld the above judgment. There is no information in the case file whether the case was further considered on cassation.
9.  In the course of the proceedings, two forensic expert examinations were carried out, the hearings were 25 times adjourned due to the defendants’ lawyers’ and once due to the witnesses’ failure to attend them. The hearings were also four times adjourned due to the applicant’s and the defendants’ lawyers’ failure to attend them (which delayed the proceedings to two months approximately).